In article t, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Back in 2000, Nader got enough votes in Florida to ultimately tip that
state to
Bush. Similar goings-on happened in other states. Exit polling of Nader
voters
showed that if Ralph hadn't run, half of his voters would have gone to
Gore, a
quarter to Bush and the other quarter to even smaller parties or they
would
have stayed home. If you look at how many votes Nader got in Florida and
elsewhere, it's clear that if the above percentages had gone to Gore and
Bush
we'd have a different team in the White House today.

In effect, by splitting Gore's support, Nader put Bush in the White House.
That's why the Green Party refused to support him this time around.

Remember Ross Perot? He did the same thing for Bill Clinton - twice! By
splitting the support for Papa Bush in 92 and Dole in 96, he allowed
Clinton to
be elected with less than a popular majority.

But as long as our political leadership is
determined by who gets the biggest PAC bribes for their re-election, it
really doesn't matter which party has control.

Sounds like a rationale to avoid saying Bush's support of BPL is a bad
thing.

The idea that a Nader vote will somehow stop BPL is misguided. I don't
know
whether a vote for Kerry will help in the BPL fight, but you can be sure
that a
vote for Nader will simply help reelect Bush.

And remember this plain, simple fact:

A vote for Bush is a vote for BPL.

73 de Jim, N2EY


ABB eh Jim? Pathetic.


ABB? What's that mean, Dan?

Vote Nader


73 de Jim, N2EY